MovieProfessor
-
Posts
1,421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by MovieProfessor
-
-
All Around For Movies . . . I'd Say Ronald Colman . . . He was in silent films as well as when sound came along.
-
So now we've moved on to Higgins . . . Well, does anyone have an opinion on who might have played the role in 1964, other than Rex? I've seen in the past some interesting names . . . Yet, having seen him in the original I though he was simply great . . . Lerner said that the key to the role as he saw it was not requiring somebody who could sing, but getting a great actor who could translate the songs on a high level of intellect. I think Harrison was about as arrogant as the role required and he was in a proud sense annoyingly great. I think Shaw never intended the character to have a lot of positive traits, but Higgins found them as he got to know Eliza.
-
The story of McNamara is one that has never been so easily clarified. It?s a story that while might be intriguing for some to scrutinized, there really isn?t much to tell, other than she came to the spotlight of fame fast and disappeared as quickly as she had come. There are more questions to her life and times than any plausible answers to make a clear assessment and understand what might have happened to such a beautiful, bright woman. What isn?t usually told about her is that before getting into show business, she had a very successful career as a popular fashion model in New York during the late 1940s and early 1950s. McNamara?s picture and image popped up almost everywhere on newsstand across the country. It wouldn?t take long for agents and show business personnel to approach McNamara?s family to consider her tackling a performing career. While still in her teens, she had already done television commercials aside from her modeling career. This type of exposure led to all sorts of interesting hype and comparisons were made of McNamara to the current flow of young aspiring stars of show business. With little or no performing experience, McNamara enrolled in various schools to study acting and dance. After about three years, in 1951, she began her pursuit of an acting career on the live stage and dwelling into television. It was during this period, McNamara, together with another aspiring model, turned actress by the name of Grace Kelly received a bit of notoriety. The Broadway critics were kind to McNamara, most of them admiring her girlish charm that obviously equated with the typical notion of the ?girl next door? syndrome.
The big turning point for McNamara and her entertainment career came, when she replaced Barbara Bel Geddes in the smash Broadway hit show, ?The Moon Is Blue.? This adult comedy created a sensation, especially with McNamara suddenly becoming the main central focus of the play?s success! Director Otto Preminger, who always took the credit for having discovered McNamara, felt he had no recourse but to realize the young girl had something special. After a two year run of the play, the director signed her on to be in the film version and thus make her a big film star. The various claims of Preminger having guided McNamara to the spotlight have always been in question, since McNamara had before her success in ?The Moon Is Blue,? already been noticed and written about. Still, the movie version received lots of buzz, due to the censorship issue, especially with various social groups condemning the movie. It might have looked rather dangerous for anyone to be in this movie, but Preminger made certain he could overcome the various resistances to the film. His biggest ploy was hiring William Holden to star, along with David Niven. Besides McNamara was still another starlet on the way up, lovely Dawn Adams in the movie. The publicity the film received over so many issues, on top of McNamara having been in the original show, pretty much guaranteed to Preminger his investment was safe and sound. The film was a smash at the box-office and everything now pointed to McNamara reaching movie stardom!
Perhaps the biggest surprise to the whole hype of ?The Moon Is Blue? was McNamara receiving an Academy Award nomination for ?Best Actress!? This was enormous news, due to McNamara having done just one film. It?s difficult to pinpoint just what gave McNamara leverage to received such a high honor. Some critics felt the Academy members had gone a little too far in nominating her. Yet, her performance was in so many ways first rate for a first time screen performer. Once again, Preminger harped on the fuss about McNamara becoming the next big movie star of the year. However, out of nowhere came another girl who caught the public?s fancy. This new face overshadowed McNamara that year of 1953, finally ending with this new face winning the ?Oscar? by the name of Audrey Hepburn. Although McNamara lost out, she signed a good contract with 20th Century-Fox to star in major productions. The first was the now legendary CinemaScope travelogue romantic tale of ?Three Coins in The Fountain.? Most of the film was shot overseas, on location in Rome. McNamara?s recent big publicity certainly helped her and the movie became a huge popular box-office success. Unlike most starlets, McNamara didn?t take quick advantage of the hype that suddenly surrounded her. She waited a whole year to appear in her next film for 20th Century-Fox, ?Prince of Players? in 1955. This biographical drama about the legendary ?Booth? stage acting family of the 19th Century was on all counts well received. But, McNamara didn?t seem to be a part of the film?s success. While some will say her performance was good, something behind the scenes went wrong, because only after two films, this turned out to be her last film in Hollywood! She simply disappeared from sight. Rumor has it that she simply dwelled in a few business ventures and then she married film director David Swift. Not much was ever known about their relationship, even though Swift had a highly visible directing career at various studios. McNamara stayed out of the spotlight, hardly ever being seen in public. At the end of the 1950 decade, she was all but forgotten, except for one situation that is rather amusing and part of Hollywood folklore. In 1959, producer/director George Stevens released the dramatic film, ?The Diary of Anne Frank.? In the film was a young new starlet, Millie Perkins, who bore a striking resemblance to McNamara. In fact, Perkins had once been a model and was discovered by director Stevens. All of this equated with what had happened with McNamara. But, there was for some strange reason confusion amid some in the general public thinking Perkins and McNamara were one in the same! People asked, ?What had happened to her? . . . Where had the girl from ?The Moon Is Blue? gone to? It was a situation that really didn?t last long, but created a bit of a silly stir.
McNamara would later show up in a few television shows during the 1960s. After her divorce from director David Swift, she left Hollywood and headed back to New York. She appeared in several plays on Broadway, but nothing that could regain her past fame. Then, in 1963 came a surprise, when McNamara appeared in a small role for director Otto Preminger, in the dramatic epic ?The Cardinal.? Rumor had it that she was sinking into hard-times and her only getting the role was Preminger extending a humble hand to help her for reasons of their successful previous teaming. There has always been the speculation that MaNamara's role in "The Cardinal" may have been originally more extensive and then ended up getting cut. This issue of her last major film appearance being so insignificant led to the first rumors referring to her suffering from emotional stress. Therefore, her return to motion pictures couldn't be seen as anything remotely satisfying. The last the time she would be seen in any performing capacity would be in one last television program around the end of 1964. With little hope of ever getting anything back of her previous celebrity prominence, she tried her hand at becoming a writer. This venture appeared for the most part to not get anywhere and she was by that time during the late 1960s, working as a secretary. Most of the time, people in the offices where she worked, had no idea who she had once been. There were times when even the mention of her name sparked no interest or remembrance to who she had once been. When she died in 1978 of a presumed overdose of sleeping pills, her death didn?t make the newswires until a month later! Reports from relatives said that she had been working on a movie script and that it was being considered by a small production company. This issue has created a controversy on whether or not she was so depressed at the time to commit what some say was a suicide.
What many film buffs will remember about McNamara will probably be her beautiful charm and spirited sweet image on screen. The three films she made during the 1950s were all good ones and they have remained in the forefront of movie history. I can?t really say that she was such a tragic figure, in that we know so little about her. Perhaps there was a time that being a celebrity and the pressures it brings wasn?t worth it to her. While some fans will want to know whatever happened to her, it?s now best to just let her go and not be so nosy and enter the realm of gossip that she doesn?t deserve. She will remain a mystery that has its usual intrigue to what there is about the movies and what happens to some who come under its spotlight.
-
The one single issue that has stuck many who have viewed the video is Jayne's hair! She looks so different with her hair cut short. The reason for this rather radical different appearance was due to her starting to wear lots of wigs. Some of her wigs were outlandish colors of pink, purple and even a green one. Strange, that in this Hitchcock program she doesn?t look so attractive and it was a rather low keyed story. However, from a nostalgic sense, it was nice to see Jayne and Tony together one more time. Even then, the fans must have remembered their work together in ?Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter.? What I?d love to find is any old publicity concerning the television show that must have centered around the reuniting of the two. It would be interesting to see how that was handled.
-
What pains me about this whole issue on ?Eliza? have more to do with the musicality then anything else. In the finial analysis it?s what gave the original 1964 version such a bad rap. I fear the same will happen with this new remake, in that as far as I can tell, Knightley has no real solid musical experience to be remotely considered a singer. While Hathaway sounds impressive and technically looks good, I have to wonder if she really ?fits-the-bill? to what the role demands in certain areas, especially the ?cockney? scenes. What I?m gearing towards which is nothing more than a fantasy of mine would be to see a ?screen test? of both actresses to make a side-by-side comparison. My test would focus upon the musical end of the sperctum that probably Hathaway would win easily from what I?ve seen of her singing. Then, the dramatic elements come next that from a strong cultural sense favor Knightley! So, either way I guess neither actress would satisfy my confidence in that the role has to be totally, across the broad along the lines of what Julie did for it. Upon reading up about the remake, I sense an atmosphere of a lukewarm response and nothing to be so excited about. But then, is there anyone else amid the actresses today who could pull it off from an artistic way of thinking? We have to ask other than Hathaway, ?who else could handle it?? Just yesterday a friend of mine remarked on the subject, ?Face it, there really isn?t anyone!?
-
The episode you are referring to is from 1961, entitled ?Hanover.? This ?Alfred Hitchcock? program has tremendous significance because it reunited Jayne with wonderful Tony Randall. Jayne and Tony had worked together four years earlier in the now cult favorite film, ?Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter.? You can view the entire episode on Hulu channel:
http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi1574436889/ |http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi1574436889/
-
He is definitely in a group of old supporting actors, whose face is so recognizable. Having been in scores of television programs for over 50 years, it?s no wonder William Schallert has always had some acknowledged long lasting career. He?s still going strong at age 87! While he doesn?t work as much as he use to, anytime Schallert arrives at the scene of a shooting project, somebody always remembers him. His career for an actor in Hollywood was rather typical in the sense that he drifted from B-movies, where he?d received screen credit and then into a major film where he usually had no screen credit at all. The truth is that he?s more remembered as a major player in television and not films. His best film performance or one that I remember so vividly was in the 1952 Monogram Pictures production of ?Flat Top.? He played a naval aviator and gave one of the picture?s best dramatic performances. Although Schallert appeared in major films, his working time on the set was usually quick and almost unnoticeable. He did over a hundred unaccredited ?walk-ons,? first in movies and then television. While this would signify he was a working actor in Hollywood, he relates more to television, where he finally made his mark receiving good roles and exposure. This issue of having become more noted for the small screen, instead of the big one, points to why TCM would probably not be so interested in interviewing Schallert. There are about a dozen or so, old-timers like him still around, who have had an extensive career in television towards making them defined in that medium and not so much the movies. Schallert was just recently seen in episodes of ?Desperate Housewives? and he continues to do voiceovers for animated films and narrations for television commercials.
-
I believe if my sources are correct, it was Paulette Duval.
-
It?s not that I want to get picky, but when I think about Julie and her skills, I have to think that Knightley is nowhere near what?s really expected . . . And, that?s an overall solid interpretation of the songs in a really good, pleasant range. I have to think that Knightley getting the role is something akin to Hepburn and she will never be in Julie?s league in the first place . . . Correct?
-
Oh NO! I knew it! My gut feeling was right! It tells me: NO! Not again! That clip of Knightley was not impressive and if that?s a sample of what she can do . . . I?m afraid she looks like she?s going to need help . . . Like you know who, way back in late 1963, at the soundstages of Warner Brothers. Of course, I could be overstating myself about Knightley and maybe, just maybe there?s more to her than this video is revealing. I?d hate to see a classic musical get butchered on the screen. There is a feeling I have that a contemporary attempt for remake, under these conditions so far spells doom and probable failure. I wonder what the budget for this new venture would be. Certainly has to be cheaper than the first one . . . Or, will inflation change even that?
-
Although there might be some speculation that the character Kane played was based on a real actress in silent films, it?s actually a composite of several women that were in Valentino?s life. He had numerous relationships with various women throughout his career, even after his marriage to Rambova, he never really stopped messing around. There has never been a definitive, reasonably believable film biography on Valentino?s life. He remains a legend of the 20th Century, shrouded in so much necromancy.
-
Wow! Not bad . . . That video of Hathaway does display a good amount of versatility. While it?s difficult to judge by just one video, I would prefer to see and hear Hathaway perform something like ?I Could Have Danced All Night,? or ?Show Me.? These are two songs from the musical that require a bit of range and technique. When Hepburn wanted to do her own singing, she made few interesting test-tracks. These recordings by Hepburn aren?t all that bad for the lighter, less demanding tunes, but she could have never done anything adequate with the two songs I?ve previously mentioned. I have a bad feeling that maybe, just maybe their could be a dubbing issue lurking in the shadows . . . I don?t know, but it?s a gut feeling I have about something going amiss with this remake in the sense of lacking some solid musical legitimacy. The choice of Knightley makes me think of Hepburn in the sense of her big popular appeal, rather than being so identified as a real, bona fide musical performer. Are there any recordings of Knightley around?
-
Of course, not knowing anything about Knightley as a musical performer, my contention is that because she?s a real Brit, she would be more legit in the role. I also didn?t know anything in terms of Hathaway?s abilities. Johansson I know does sing, even having recorded an album, but again, I wonder if she would be up to the task. I do agree that something is rather strange about Knightley?s physique; she does appear to be very thin.
What I know about the box-office take on ?My Fair Lady? is that it did take in more than double money to produce the film. The best estimated guess I?ve found is the film costing 17 million and it received a 72 million dollar return over all. While this isn?t the biggest money maker of all time, it was a respectable profit.
-
I saw the original with Julie and Rex back in 1956 on Broadway. I?ve never forgotten what a spectacular show it was and I was rooting for Julie to recreate the role on screen. I never accepted Audrey in the role. She was beautiful and her dramatic performance was at best, adequate. But of course, the whole idea that she really couldn?t handle the songs has stayed with me and at times hinders how I feel about the movie in general. So, I simply hedge my feelings on Rex and Stantley . . . They are the only redeeming factor for me to deal with the movie version. The movie really belonged to Rex and the great Stanley Holloway. Jack L. Warner handed in a great looking film, but in the long run what made ?My Fair Lady? the movie great was all the work and time poured onto it in order to make it a spectacle to behold. In the end, it was a big money picture that in general paid off big for the investment Warner made. In a business way at looking the situation and what finally resulted for what Jack L. Warner wanted, he succeeded. He might have proved himself right about the money angle and choosing a big name star, but he didn?t succeed artistically speaking and I think you?ll agree with me on that issue.
This upcoming remake is interesting from what I?ve read. First off, can Miss Knightley sing at all? And, the idea that it?s going to filmed on location around London, in real areas associated to the period of the story is rather intriguing. Perhaps the biggest news I?ve heard associated with the remake is Emma Thompson will revamp the original script. So far, there?s talk of Daniel Craig being cast as ?Higgins? but this isn?t concrete and not confirmed. Miss Knightley is said to be glad that she will be reunited with Joe Wright, who directed her both ?Atonement? and ?Pride & Prejudice.? I understand that two major American actresses were up for the role, Scarlett Johansson and Anne Hathaway. This information on the possible casting of ?Eliza? leads me to feel that is was fit and proper to have Knightley win the role. I just hope she?s up to the task, but we?ll just have to wait and see. I wonder what?s next. The last rumor I heard was a remake of ?West Side Story.?
-
The only way you can get "The Human Comedy" is on VHS . . . Copies are available all over the internet. You can't even get it on import DVD from overseas. Since Turner own the rights, this is the place to ask and as far as I know there are no plans yet for a DVD release. Everyone's best bet is to use a DVR, if and when TCM aires it again. You can then get a pretty good decent copy.
-
You are most welcome and that was an eloquent and provocative post!
-
Comon? on now Johnm . . . If you?ve been around the movies as long as I have you?d know that business or the fear of profit comes first. Overall, Jack was just thinking about his investment. Considering the overall price Warner Brothers had paid Lerner & Lowe for the rights, which if you remember were the highest paid for any film up to that time, there must have been a lot of nail biting! It is funny that a few studio chiefs said different or felt that Jack should make some allowances, this is indeed true to form. I still stand behind my belief that while I never agreed with what Jack did in terms of how he handled the situation, had he been able to get a big name star in the role of ?Higgins? _*first*_ and this is the key, I?m convinced Julie would have been in! She was as you mentioned, on a roll of popularity! There was also her major, ?live? television concert at Carnegie Hall with Carol Burnett that pretty much should have given her some, if not, enough leverage. The fact is that there were millions, upon millions who knew who she was by way of television! I can?t doubt that it?s likely the whole issue of ?appearance? was what bothered Jack in the end, besides all the money Warner Brothers was dishing out to make the movie. In the long run, it was a decision he would never be able to get away from. I?m sure he must have had some regrets; especially the following year and you know what happened with Julie when that came about!
This leads me to wonder, even after Audrey agreed to be in the film, why then did Jack feel so compelled to hire Rex Harrison? He was a known film star, but wasn?t a big a box-office draw. Enough time had lapsed since Harrison had been in the show. Once Jack got his superstar female lead, he must have felt his problems were over. My guess is at that point Harrison was lucky that no other well known box-office draw stood in his way. The issue of the original cast album is interesting as a ploy of leverage or understanding the success of the original show. However, I serious doubt there was really enough strength in that department to obviously sway Jack. The hiring of Harrison pretty much proves to me that if Jack couldn?t get a big enough male star, he then moved on to the next big thing, the female lead. That?s simple enough to comprehend. I?m not trying to defend Jack in as much as he had his reasons that we will probably never know what finally led to his decision. The fact is that he could have gotten Andrews cheap! That?s another issue that seems to be rather strange in the final analysis. It just might have always been a money issue, but perhaps in areas we just don?t know about or have never been discussed.
-
He produced Woman of the Year. It seems his early period as a producer was while at MGM fruitful, but he wasn't really happy sitting behind a desk at the front office.
-
Mankiewicz movies I would recommend: (not in any special order)
1. A Letter To Three Wives
2. Woman of The Year
3. The Keys of the Kingdom
4. No Way Out
5. People Will Talk (Incredible script! One of his finest)
6. Five Fingers
7. All About Eve
8. His documentary ?Montgomery to Memphis?
9. The Late George Apley
In answer to your last questions: I knew Clarence Brown . . . He was an idol of mine and I worshiped the ground he walked on. There?s a lot I could say about him, but its best I stay with the main subjects at hand and not use this forum as a personalized area to tell stories that can?t be proven, let alone approved. And, about the bio on De Millie . . . Well, it was no secret that C.B. got ticked-off at Joe because he wouldn?t name-names or expel members of the director?s guild that De Millie felt were radical, if not, too red and far to the left! This resulted in a terrible power play in the guild that subsequently ended with De Millie getting tossed out! That was a crazy time. Everybody was living and working under a cloud of fear. Joe?s contention to this matter was to try and protect as many of his friends and colleagues as possible. It wasn't as if those who had radical leanings could overthrow the government! The big turning point came when John Ford and a few other directors supported Joe?s position. This was especially the case when De Millie tried to get Joe voted out of his presidency at the director?s guild. What a mess that was and how so many decent people suffered over nothing that really needed to be worried about.
-
Alas! Now we have something to work with! Of the directors you make mention of under ?in my opinion,? only four would be considered great scriptwriters, Wilder, Brooks, Stevens and Lubitsch. All others are visual directors, not relying so much on the written word! I?m fascinated by your inclusion of Clarence Brown . . . I have a very, very big reason to ask! I?d like to know what films of Brown you find superior to that of Mankiewicz. The whole idea behind a J. L. Mankiewicz movie was always the script first and then the usual camera setups. He was a man who concentrated vividly over the spoken word. His only problems dealt with the restrictions and censorship of the times when he so creatively worked in films. He learned his craft from his older brother, who hands down, I will admit was an even better writer than J. L., even after Joe Mankiewicz reached the height of his career at 20th Century-Fox. Herman?s only problem was staying away from the booze that he often said gave him inspiration.
My only response to the writer?s category is that they are all great and of course I would venture to place Joe on that list. Interesting that you mention who has to be Charles Brackett. After all, the script of ?Sunset Boulevard? that he co-wrote with Billy Wilder, that won an Academy Award was the very same year Joe?s script for ?All About Eve? won in its category! I think that ought to spell out a clear and logical conclusion as to just how high on the mantel of scriptwriting Joe was considered in Hollywood. Unfortunately, Michael Wilson getting blacklisted didn?t give him much of a chance to have a big career. He was absolutely a great writer . . . BUT TELL ME SOMETHING . . . Who directed one of his greatest of all scripts? You know, ?The Five Fingers?? Hmm? Who was that director/writer, who after Mike got blacklisted, stood behind him and allowed him a chance to work? WHO IS IT? Comon now, tell me?
If there is one script Joe Mankiewicz wrote that for me is his greatest, it would be ?A Letter To Three Wives.? I only rate this script higher over his greatest success ?All About Eve? simply because Joe did a brilliant job in symbolically covering so many emotional aspects to the human spirit that even today has a strong meaning. In other words, although the dialog is peppered with innuendos and the usual metaphors necessary for the period, the whole concept of what the three woman characters of the story go through is made clear by Joe?s beautiful words and expressive direction. I don?t think there has ever been a film on screen with such modern literary beauty that spoke to its time and place. The key to Mankiewicz is what he called ?the human condition? and he certainly wasn?t afraid to tackle subjects that spoke about or centered on a central theme to what was wrong with the world or what was funny about it. For all that?s said and done, his body of work isn?t prolific, but what there is of it speaks volumes upon volumes of what our American culture, its people and spirit is all about. Yeah, I will admit that there came a time he got a bit commercial. This only happened because times changed and Hollywood changed. What he should have done was try and branch out on his own like Billy Wilder did. Joe?s biggest flaw was that he wasn?t so lucky overall as a producer. He got a bit spoiled by the studio system that would cater to give him what asked for, making him feel comfortable. He was on all counts a product or child of the studio system, together with his older brother Herman.
You are entitled to your opinion, but there are some ideas, theories or expressive thought that require a little clarification to a point of debating, if not, defending. And, I just loved the 1950 movie ?Fancy Pants? with Bob Hope and Lucille Ball . . . I?m in good company!
-
I?ve read of a different time frame concerning the availability of Andrews. However, it?s logical that Disney and Warner?s would have been able to stretch the situation out and make it all work. About the time ?My Fair Lady? was in its planning stage, Andrews had a lot of support from the entertainment community. Most memorable were two major primetime spots on television. One appearance was on a Jack Benny Special and the other on the highly rated Andy Williams Show. Warner Brothers tried to work out something along the effect that she could only get the role, based on what male star would be selected in order to ensure a safe investment. It is clearly correct that after all these years, the one thing that held any chance of Andrews getting the role was Hepburn. It?s likely that because Andrews had lots of support on her getting cast, whatever major box-office male star received the lead role of ?Higgins,? could have very well swayed Warner and therefore this is why her chances from a technical and prestigious standpoint were always 50/50. The problem or mistake Jack L. Warner made was not referring to the old publicity game. Had he chosen Andrews, he could have very well made up for any doubts by way of a good and big promotional campaign. But then, all of this rested with who would get the role of ?Higgins.? It?s logical to think that Warner never wanted Andrews from day one, but being around the movie business, things are said one day in a certain way, to then see it all said in another way. I now believed after all years that by some miracle had Cary said yes, he would have naturally then supported the casting of Andrews! That?s the bottom line! What we have here are events that are now shrouded in a bit of conjecture and opinions that have changed over the years. I?m pretty sure in time Warner regretted how he handled the situation. But then, he did what any studio boss felt was necessary. Deep down inside, he knew that Andrews would have been the proper choice from a musical perspective. Once Andrews was out of the picture, what everyone ought to not forget is what would have happened had Warner not cast Rex Harrison? On top of everything else, one can only imagine the enormous backlash of criticism that would have created. Warner obviously made amends in that category.
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 27, 2009 3:15 PM
-
> Sorry if I have offended anyone with this, but surely some of you agree with me, yes?
I seriously doubt any die-hard, film buff, student of the cinema, plain and simple intelligent fan, or any old-timer like me from that era would ever believe or think for one single, solitary moment the great Joseph L. Mankiewicz of ever being over-rated! Good God . . . Have you been drinking? Are you on any medications?
Looking from a perspective of the times Mankiewicz worked in Hollywood, one should try and understand what restrictions there was to filmmaking and this is why Mankiewicz tried to be so articulate with his scripts. He was geared towards working with performers to a high degree of understanding the spoken word and not so much anything so visual. Of course, you must be young? Not from that era? But then, you didn?t compare Mankiewicz to whom who might feel is superior? That?s what I?d like to hear and then we?ll take it from there.
-
Fred,
It was the "proving grounds" around "White Sands" not far from where the atomic bomb was created and then tested. It was that area after the war where most of the German scientist worked on the US Rocket program.
-
Oh wait! One more point. In the years following what happened with ?My Fair Lady? and the casting of Audrey Hepburn, producer Jack L. Warner said before he died, ?I would have Andrews in the picture, had Cary Grant decided to star!? Warner had from the start, wanted Grant in the role of ?Professor Higgins,? made famous by Rex Harrison on stage. Had this been done, the fate of another musical movie that same year would have been very different! It?s clear to note that Julie wouldn?t have been cast in Walt Disney?s ?Mary Poppins!? Yet, either way you look at it, be it ?My Fair Lady? or ?Mary Poppins,? Julie probably would have won her ?Oscar? anyway! Audrey simply helped speed up the process of Julie getting such huge notoriety and a lot of sympathy. It?s was all so amazing the way Julie Andrews rose to the heights of movie star fame and box-office clout. All of it resulting from a simple business decision that changed the scope and destiny of the movies. What a year 1964 was and will remain such a banner year in movie history.
Joe Makiewicz is REALLY overrated.
in Films and Filmmakers
Posted
If you mean Ben, TCM's daytime host, he is the grandson of writer Herman Mankiewicz and great-nephew of director Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Ben had two other jobs in television, one at TMZ and the other as a critic on "At The Movies."